My most current blog series is Long Division, a theoretical reorganization of power sources, classes, archetypes, and subclasses. In my previous articles on the topic, I suggested new division of magic, martial, gish, and spellcasting. In this article, I discuss an organization for weapons.

Weapons are the "implements" for the martial power source and for gish classes. It is the tool they use for manifesting their martial training and bringing pain to their enemies. Treating weapons as implements will be important when we contemplate the classification of shields.

A History of Weapons

Weapons may have the strangest journey of all the elements I've described to date. In Original D&D you didn't have a lot of choices for weapons. You had the club, mace, flail, sword, dagger, quarterstaff, bow, and crossbow. (Did you have a crossbow even? I don't remember now.) They basically all did the same thing with different polyhedrals.

The Dungeon Caddy

In AD&D, weapons exploded! Not literally; it was an explosion of options. Gygax really let his inner medievalist run rampant in AD&D. In fact, Gygax' obsession with pole arms was so infamous, it spawned a Pole Arm Quiz this past April Fools. AD&D took the attitude that every weapon should be detailed, every weapon should be mechanically unique, and you reward players for ferreting out the best weapons.

Because each weapon had to be unique, weapons were given all sorts of traits and powers. Some pole arms gave you a bonus to disarming, others to tripping. Some did 1d8+1 damage. Some did 2d4 damage. Some were slashing weapons. Some were piercing weapons. Some were blunt. Some were wooden. Some were metal. Some were silver. Some were cold iron. And if you were going up against someone wearing armor you might get a bonus or penalty depending on the type of armor he was wearing. The result was the quiver of weapons, where you felt the need to have a weapon of every type (and a back-up in case of rust monsters) so you could switch in and out depending on who you fought.

I always imagined fighters walking around with a caddy...

Fighter: What is that? A rust monster? Hand me my three wood.Caddy: No sir. I believe that is a rust monster zombie. You need something slashing. Maybe a five iron?Fighter: Rust monster zombie? Do they only eat iron brains? Hand me my wedge. I'm going to have to hit this one out of the bunker.

A World of Weapons

Successive editions reduced the number of weapons available, at least initially. However, introducing exotic weapons became a favorite way to add flavor to a region or race. Gnolls became identified with the three-headed flail, and minotaurs with the executioner's axe. Elves got longbows and long swords (almost always an optimal choice), and drow somehow got mixed up with the scimitar and the hand crossbow. Halflings were linked to the sling. It was weird, but it was just too damn easy to fill page requirements by adding yet another regional item.

Consolidation

By the time 4th edition rolled around, the number of weapons was drastically reduced and the various qualities were as well. Monsters were not affected differently by different weapon types. There was no need to carry that morning star simply because it did blunt and piercing damage. Thousands of dungeon caddies were put out of work.

Weapons were distinguished mainly by damage and a handful or weapon properties with weird names: small, stout, versatile, brutal, off-hand, defensive, thrown, high crit, and load.

A Reason for Weapons

So what's the benefit of distinguishing weapons? Well, I see a few:

Polyhedrals: Without randomness for hp, damage is pretty much the only reason to use polyhedrals. We use d20 for everything else except monster power recharging and the random element of the chaos sorcerer. And people love their polyhedrals! They're pretty. I don't want to live in a world in which D&D players only have to buy a sleeve of icosahedrons and borrow some cubes from a MonopolyTM set in order to play. Save Our Pythagorean Solids!

Identity: A warrior's identity is often based on his weapon. Drizz't has his scimitars and Grey Mouser his dagger. Conan has the great sword, Gimli his axe and Legolas his bow. With feats, a character can give his character a weapon-based identity that encourages him to use a specific weapon, without sacrificing his utiility if he happens to temporarily lose it.

Immersion: In a world of interchangeable weapons, let's face it, everyone carries a sword, which is the default medieval weapon in our subconsciousness. When was the last time your DM described someone wielding a ranseur? Back in AD&D, the DM would say things like, "The guard on the left has a glaive and the one on the right has a halberd" and that meant something. (Usually, it meant avoid the guy with the halberd.) Now, I think the level of minutia in AD&D was overdone, but there's a place for encouraging DMs to add these elements to their game.

A New Division

Hands: What I suggest is to relate the game to the combat styles I identified for the martial classes back in a New Division of Martial. Those styles were: Ranged, Shield and Arms, Two-handed, Two-weapon, and Versatile. (Ally doesn't count.) These styled are translated into weapon sizes, which I measure by "hands". Small weapons appropriate for off-hand or two-handed use are "Half-Handed". Weapons that can be wielded with a shield or half-handed weapon are "Handed". Weapons that can be wielded single or double-handed (what we know call "Versatile") are "Hand-and-a-Half", and two-handed weapons are called "Two-Handed". Finally, weapons larger than that (pole arms) are still called "reach" weapons. The smallest weapons would inflict d4 with the size of the die increasing by one with the size of the weapon. Pole arms thus inflict d12 damage. Thus, larger weapons are both more damaging and more swingy, in the literal and die-related sense. In addition, there would be a category for "thrown" weapons, which would inflict a basic d6 or d8, depending on whether it is thrown by hand (and is this a handed weapon) or launched with a launcher like an atlatl or sling (which would be treated like a hand-and-a-half weapon).

Families: In addition, to allow variety by class, I identify several weapon families, based on the type of damage they do. I've identified 10 weapon families: Axe, Blade, Bow, Crossbow, Flail, Hammer, Mace, Spear, Shield, and Unarmed. I've selected a representative weapon for each combination of Hand and Family and placed it into the following grid (click on the image for a larger view):

If you don't see a weapon, that's probably because it it subsumed into a category. The tomahawk, for instance, is a throwing axe, so it would fall under "Francisca" (a European medieval throwing axe). Each family of weapons also has a quality, like "unbalancing" or "basic". I haven't defined these qualities, as that would be very dependent on the underlying mechanics of the game. Suffice to say that the intent is that each family of weapons feel similar to one another and different from other weapons of its size in other families.

The goal is to make weapon choice easy, meaningful, and yet discourage the weapon caddy. The weapons are varied enough that you get a good variety, but without the minutia of memorizing the traits of a bec corbin. Most people would choose one melee weapon and either a thrown weapon, bow, or crossbow.

Mounted Weapons

One last modification I might consider is to allow for "mounted weapons" in each category. These would be pole arms built specifically for mounted combat (like lances) and may give benefits to mounted combatants and be unweildable otherwise. That would all depend on how robust mounted combat rules would be in a new edition.

Improvised Weapons

Improvised weapons are like any other weapon. How many hands does it take to wield it? What sort of damage does it do? If you stab, it's in the spear family. It you slice and it's head is more than three times as big as the haft, it's in the axe family; otherwise, it's in the blade family. If it has a hinge or is flexible, it's in the flail family. If it's blunt and it's head is more than three times the shaft's diameter, it's in the hammer family; otherwise, it's in the mace family. If it's broader than it is thick, it's in the shield family. If you wrap it around your hand, it's in the unarmed family. If you can shoot it from a bow or crossbow (and that would be odd for an improvised weapon) it's in the bow or crossbow families. An improvised weapon is not built for combat and it will break. Breakage rules would depend on underlying mechanics. It is feasible to have additional penalties to attack or damage.

Culture Shock

I'm going to elaborate on a few of the oddities in the chart, mostly dealing with shields and unarmed combat.

Shields

Shield as Weapon. Bear with me. Since I am advocating that guardian be made a full class, and it distinguishes itself on shield use, I think shields deserve status as a weapon (or, more precisely, as a martial implement). The way a shield would work is not to increase one's AC -- I would leave that strictly to armor -- but allow a shield-bearer (or anybody wielding a second weapon) to use the shield or smaller or their two weapons to offset damage done to them equal to the damage of the shield. (The shield could also be used to shield bash as a weapon of that die value). The "hand-and-a-half shield" could be used to offset damage inflicted on the shield bearer or on an adjacent ally. That would be the property of the shield family -- to offset damage.

Two-Handed Shield?! Weird, right? What a Great Shield and Tower Shield are, essentially, is a defensive siege weapon. These shields would give you (Great) or you and an ally (Tower) cover until you get within, say 10 squares of combat. Then you either discard it to pull out your regular weapons, or it serves like any other shield for offsetting damage and shield bashing. I can imagine guardians being able to pull off some fun stunts in the initial round when carrying a great shield or tower shield. This might get useful once you can get your hands (no pun intended) on some gloves of storing.

Unarmed Combat

Handed Weapon. Okay, the fist is a one-handed weapon. Ha, ha. Cute pun. But why would anybody wield a half-handed weapon when they were born with two one-handed weapons? Unarmed combat comes with the nonlethal quality. Unless you are specially trained, which requires you to be a mystic or some sort of brawler build, using the fist should always have a drawback that offsets the extra +1 damage you get for using a fist rather than a small weapon. That said, the benefit of the unarmed weapon (including the cestus and gauntlet) is that you can carry a weapon in the hand that also can be used unarmed.

Ranged Combat

Shields and bows. I actually think reducing the effective range of ranged weapons is necessary in D&D. You want people to get near each other for combat. Reducing ranged weapon effectiveness to about 10 squares is useful to ensure that everyone is engaged in combat at the same time. In return, I've upped ranged weapon damage on the grounds that they are two-handed weapons. (Except the hand crossbow, which is a hand-and-a-half weapon.)

Crossbows. I'd eliminate load times. I think they overcomplicate crossbows. Rather, bows, like blades, can be keen (whether that meets higher crit values or something else would be for a consideration of the ultimate underlying mechanics). Crossbows, like axes, would be brutal (again, whatever that ultimately means). Load times make crossbowmen feel like henchmen. While the archer is shooting off multiple arrows, the crossbowman is taking a standard action to turn a crank. We're heroes dammit! Make the crossbow fearsome again, not the miserable backup weapon of the magicless wizard (a la 3rd edition).

Missing Weapons.

Exotic weapons are gone. I hate them. One man's nunchaku is another man's length of chain with handles. Well, not gone. They just aren't exotic. Every weapon is going to fit into one of these families and requires a half to two hands (with or without reach). If you can wield a glaive you can wield a naginata. At most, exotic weapons should be flavorful. So if you want to describe the oni as wielding a "yari" instead of a pike, be my guest. A DM can even rule that only people from a certain region can describe their pikes as yari. Go wild with it.

Pick it. Along with exotic weapons, picks have been folded into the hammer family. Picks are basically hammers with a spike on the back. It's still a hammer. Similarly, tridents are folded into spears, and scythes are folded into axes. Those are the European version of exotic weapons.

Throwing shield. Someone mentioned the throwing shield and I did think of adding it to the table, but my inner historian would let me do it. There's just so many things wrong with the idea. I don't care about Captain America, making a shield to be thrown just irks me. I know, I know. If this ever gets implemented, I'll suck it up and include a throwing shield.

In the next and final article of the series, I discuss a New Division of Implements!

Comments

I do like to reduce the weapon descriptors and inventory. I'd still like to see javelin included rather than dart, however, I really feel it exists as a hand-and-a-half; I've thrown javelins in track and field and it requires your non-throwing arm to be acting as a balance of sorts. I'd rather see lucerne hammer in place of maul and move maul into the two-hand slot while war hammer moves into the hand-and-a-half realm. I like gavel and mallet being included. I suspect sling is intended to fit into the thorwn mace slot; is that right? I personally would separate straight two-edged blade from curved one-edged blade of scimitar, falchion, fullblade, knife, kukri, and machete.
I appreciate how the descriptors create context that esaily illustrates the size and funciton of the weapon. For example, I'd never heard of francisca or hurlbat, nor feather staff, yet the context gives me a clear understanding.

I don't see how scimitars function significantly differently from other blades. Slings, as stated in the article, increase the damage of thrown weapons. I'm sympathetic to renaming the hammer entries. My other option was eliminating war hammer, moving maul into its place and putting lucerne hammer or bec de corbin, except I don't like including real world place names ("Lucerne") or French. :)

well, it is partly just words. In a sourcebook pertaining to a certain setting, the names of weapons might be changed without making changes to the mechanics. I view the curved, single edge blades as slashing and slicing weapons. The combat style can differ greatly as can the wounds caused. Straight, double edge blades I view as hewing and piercing or hacking and stabbing; again the style and wounds differ. In that much I think there is space to allow the two. But I can see a similar arguement being lobbied for picks to be treated separate from hammers, since a pick can leave a terrifying deep, piercing wound while the hammer would leave a devastating blunt force trauma and broken bones. So, ultimately, it starts to come down to a decision of how much simulation is permitted to permeate the mechanics. If the mechanics are reduced further to represent a more abstract meaning, even fewer weapons might be needed--much like Gamma World. Were I remaking weapons, I can speak for a few that I'd still like to include which you've left out. Also, I don't prefer d4 weapons to remain, nor d12. But that is probably because I've watched too much Deadliest Warrior. I notiiced that pretty much any weapon designed to kill would do just that on a solid hit, but the chance to make that good solid hit varied extremely. D

just thought: if rangers (or something like them) continue to gain 'use one handed weapon in off-hand' then they don't dual weild longswords or battle axes or spears. I like this change. I never liked that image of a warrior dual wielding somehting designed to be wide swinging, heavy, and generally designed to require the off-hand serve as balance. i hope that the weapons chart in combination with the martial archetypes prevents the wielding of two hand-and-a-half weapons.

Good article. The blog post I wrote hinted at a similar system - weapon families, in which each family had certain characteristics, that have damage increase with size. I really think the current weapon system is sloppy.
Have you described what keen, penetrating, ready, or any of those other terms mean anywhere else? I don't see them described here.

Thanks for the kind words. I did not describe what the weapon qualities mean. That would depend on the specific combat mechanics, which is beyond the scope of this series. All that matters is that they are meaningful, of relatively equal value, and make these weapons "feel" different in appropriate ways.

i was doing some work for my personal project and, try as i might, could not find a way to integrate the pick at all. i think you are right here, it doesn't need a design space and isn't a common enough historical weapon to impact a fantasy game.

Since polearms, like the Halberd and Glaive are mounted on a pole that is only 5-7 feet in length, probably weapons like the 6-foot Quarterstaff should be 'reach weapons', by definition. Every description of staff-fighting whether Euro or Asian, seems to celebrate the staff as a simple but very effective weapon because of its 'good reach'. The Pike, whose pole is 10-25 feet is bizarrely long compared to other polearms. The Pike is in category by itself, and cant be used as a metric to gauge other weapons. Probably, the Lance being 6-10 feet is the best representative for the Pole-Spear group. As such, any 6-FOOT or more weapon, including Quarterstaff, Spear, Halberd, Glaive, Pole-Axe, etcetera should be a 'reach weapon'. Most polearms have a total length, including the head, between about 6−10 feet, in other words more than 1-Square, but not quite 2 squares. (Using metric, a weapon with 'good reach' is one that is 2-3 meters.)

I'd use "broadsword" instead of short sword, except that the adjective "broad" makes the layperson think the sword is longer (i.e., broader) than other swords. And arming swords include hand-and-a-half swords, so I can't use that. Great sword is a fine word for the two-handed sword, though.

broad means wider... as in wider hips. And no lay person is gonna know what a cestus or likely several others on the table are either.
It really does seem wierd to call ones sword a short sword? a Saex yes, a gladius yes - broadsword seems to have both history and not feel quite as language specific as others.
Guess I had never heard of a arming sword being a long sword. (but I think it is a less well known name than a broadsword anyway).

I agree that some of the names on the chart are obscure, but my criteria was as follows:

* European medieval weapon that is commonly known and describes the category well. (Most of the weapons on the chart)

* A commonly known D&D term that describes the category well (e.g., short bow, short sword, great sword, and spiked chain)

* A European medieval weapon that describes the category well, even if not well known. (e.g., pollaxe, feather staff)

* A European medieval weapon that fits the category (e.g., buckler, fransisca, glaive)

* Any weapon that fits the category, with a preference for historical names over modern ones, and a preference for European ones over non-European (e.g., bolas, gavel, hurlbat, sap, throwing blade, cestus, whip)

* Make something up. (Great axe, great spear, great shield)

If I could find a medieval name for brass knuckles, I'd use that instead of "cestus".

If I merged hammer and staff, I think the progression would be: stone (throw)/club (half)/hammer (hand)/mace (hand-and-a-half)/quarterstaff (2-handed)/maul (reach).

.

While I understand that a quarterstaff is as long as some reach weapons, it is generally held in the center, rather than at one end like a polearm, and thus doesn't quite give you the reach of a polearm.

A quarterstaff is definitely not typically used like a reach weapon.(slash and dash eh what a hoot) / as far as how weapons are used? That is the most useful divisioning.. the Axe and hammer ie endbalanced weapons all have some strong commonality in this regards.